When the word ‘Secular’ was borrowed from the west and placed into the preamble of our constitution by the founding members of modern India, the message they wanted to send out to the world and the value system they wanted to instill among Indians in a nutshell was that India will have no state religion, all the people in this ancient country are equal in the eyes of the government and the law thus shall live in peace and harmony.

But what our modern leaders did was nothing unique or exemplary by adding secularism to India’s constitution but rather made the concept of secularism redundant and betrayed the basic knowledge and essence that constituted India’s ethos since time immemorial. India always followed the great tradition of ‘Sarva dharma sambhava’ i.e. all religions are harmonious with each other and lead to God and thus one can follow the path he or she chooses. Tolerance and harmony is a weave through Indian philosophy, culture and society since ages.

Born out of the great Hindu Vedic Dharmic tradition, between 200 BC and 300 CE, Buddhism swept through the length and breadth of the Indian sub continent catching the imagination of the rulers and the people alike. India from a 100% Hindu nation became a Buddhist majority nation and remained so for nearly 500 years. Many Emperors and Kings converted to Buddhism and so did vast majority of the subjects but never did the converted rulers or their subjects persecute followers of the old faith i.e. Sanatana Dharma or Hinduism, as we know it popularly.

The Gupta’s, who were Hindu’s, reined greater part of India from 320 CE to 550 CE. They not only ushered in India’s golden age but also presided over a golden Hindu renaissance. Being staunch Hindus they gave impetus to Vedic Hinduism but also continued to patronize Buddhism by donating and supporting various Buddhist monasteries and universities. The state supported and promoted all denomination of faiths with an even hand.

Even during the period of Islamic invasion and occupation starting earnestly in 1200 CE many Hindu kings during these very disturbing times continued to maintain Dharmic equanimity and promoted religious tolerance and equality.

The Vijaynagar Empire (1336 CE to 1565 CE) the bulwark of Hindu resistance to Islamic onslaught in the Deccan and Peninsular India had a sizeable Muslim population residing within the city wall as well as in various parts of the empire but never during the interminable strife with the Bahamani Muslim sultans were these minorities mistreated. In fact, the rulers of Vijaynagar provided them patronage and privileges during their festivals and daily life. Whereas all the while neighbouring Bahamani Sultans persecuted and mistreated their Hindu subjects.

Here I digress to highlight a little known fact about Ala-ud-din Bahaman Shah also known as Zafar Khan or Hasan Gangu who founded the Bahamani sultanate and took the name ‘Bahaman’ in honour of his Brahmin patron. Ala-ud-din was a Tajik-Persian slave, Brahmin Gangadhar Shastri Wabale saved Ala-ud-din’s life as a young boy and took him into his service. The boy Ala-ud-din was given good education and station in life while all the time the good Brahmin never interfered in his religious beliefs. This I think is one outstanding example of true secularism in medieval India.

Parsees, the fire worshipping Mazdians of Persia arrived in India around the 10 century escaping Muslim persecution in Iran. Parsees were welcomed and integrated into India society with local Raja’s patronizing their fire temples and have gone on to contribute to India inversely proportional to their small numbers. Similar is the case with the Jews who were one of the first foreign religions to have arrived in India and found the only place in the world where they were never prosecuted for their religious beliefs (except in Goa where Portuguese prosecuted Jews on their arrival). In fact on the founding day of Israel, the Israeli parliament thanked the great people of India for being respectful, tolerant, supportive of their people and for providing them a safe haven.

Chatrapati Shivaji Maharaj (1642 to 1680) the epitome of a Vedic era Raja in medieval times exemplified tolerance and respect of all religions during a time when he was engaged in Dharma Yudh with one of the most tyrannical ruler of India, Emperor Alamgir better known as Aurangzeb the Mughal. Raja Shivaji not only forbade his troops from destroying places of worship of Muslims but also ensured that women and children were never molested. Offenders were severely dealt with, which was mostly a penalty of death. Once during a raid on Kalyan, a town in Thane district in Maharashtra, Maratha troops captured the wife of the local governor known for her extraordinary beauty but when she was presented to him as a war trophy, he raged at the generals and troops for their Adharmic conduct and immediately restored the women to her husband.

Maharaja Ranjit Singh (1780 to 1839) the Khalsa established a Sikh Kingdom born out of the misery of the people of the Punjab, a land ploughed by the ravages of war for more than a 1000 years. In this war torn land he brought economic prosperity, tolerance and harmony among people who were at each other throats since anyone could remember. With his capital at Lahore Ranjit Singh administered an empire which consisted of approximately 45% Muslims 35% Hindus and 20% Sikhs. He employed in his administration and army Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs and even Christian mostly European officers. Holi, Dipawali, Id, Christmas and birthdays of Sikhs Gurus were celebrated with great fervor and festivity with equal support and patronage by the royal Khalsa durbar. Raja Ranjit Singh’s closest confidant and Hakeem (doctor) was a Muslim and his trusted generals and ministers were Hindu Rajputs, Jats and Muslims.

With these few illustrations I wanted to highlight that by adding an imported alien word like ‘Secularism’ meant for different land and people troubled by different problems is like showing the path to a people who have already reached their destination. Indian ethos has always been of tolerance and harmony and respect for peoples of different faiths. India with a 17% Muslim (second largest Muslim population in the world) and 3 % Christian minority population, has endured and grown with peace and harmony not because of the word secularism in the law books but because people truly believe in mutual respect for each other’s belief system. What we need is true understanding of our cultural roots and use it as a beacon to guide us forward and not look somewhere else for guidance.

This is a guest post by Shankara, a friend of CRI. He can be followed at @Sshankara

Related posts

The writer of the present article should be congratulated for taking us to the historical journey of secularism in India. However, he has not checked his facts meticulously. The term “secularism” was added in the Constitution in 1976 through 42nd Amendment Act of the Constitution. Our founding fathers did not deem it necessary to include the word in the Const. They, instead, provided for 1) freedom of religion, 2) non-discrimination on the basis of religion and3) absence of state religion. These three provisions covered the entire gamut of secularism. In fact secularism has two traditions — western and Indian. In western tradition secularism was the separation of religion and politics; in Indian tradition, as expressed by Gandhijee, it was “sarva dharma sambhav” i e, equal respect for all religions. Mid-1970s was an era of populist and declaratory politics. Instead of taking concrete steps, the Const.was amended to add three words in the Preamble:”Socialist Secular” and “integrity”. The purpose was to check the rising assertion of resurgent Hindus.

http://ioretradingindia.blogspot.com/ Anil Kohli

Dear Mr. Jha,

I beg to differ on the premise presented “Mid-1970s was an era of populist and declaratory politics. Instead of
taking concrete steps, the Const.was amended to add three words in the
Preamble:”Socialist Secular” and “integrity”. The purpose was to check
the rising assertion of resurgent Hindus.”

Word secularism was brought into play to ensure larger share of the pie in electoral politics since newer political parties were emerging & Congress leadership felt the need to have something unique with which to continue in power.

Congress has ever since employed this ‘Secularism’ as a knife to carve out a larger slice of the pie in form of vote share.

This was the singular debilitating dis-service ever done by Congress to damage the social fabric of India.

We are saying the same thing . I see the inclusion of the term ‘secularism’ as an attempt to check resurgent Hinduism, you see it as an attempt to get a larger vote share and building a vote bank. If you read my comment carefully you will agree that the inclusion of the two words “socialist secular” had a political purpose.

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_4OCZYXDCEQP5SUFZLM5I4M5TRQ Vijaya

>> I see the inclusion of the term ‘secularism’ as an attempt to check resurgent Hinduism

So you are contradicting the author of the article who seems to believe that secularism comes naturally to people of our country. So whats the issue with secularism? Issue is this: Modern secular laws/constitution are in contradiction with, and coming in the way of imposing rules of caste/jati etc and that is seen as a threat by some (who organized themselves as hindutva groups).

Rajkumar Palaniswamy

Tamils are the earliest and original inhabitants of this country . There is no mention of it. Probably they are not considered as Indians I suppose.

http://ioretradingindia.blogspot.com/ Anil Kohli

Dear Mr. Palaniswamy,

Why is it that everything has to be viewed thru a narrow prism of parochialism.

The discussion is on Secularism & not the earliest inhabitants of India. How by mentioning or not mentioning about Tamils reduces their importance or Indianness one fails to understand.

A more open approach is need of the hour & oneupmanship is not going to get any extra benefits, conversely it can only attract negative comments. Which would take the discussion to an entirely different trajectory.

Hope you will ponder.

Thank you

http://twitter.com/amitagra21 Amit

Btw, do you have any proof for the same? Or you just want to pander the aryan invasion theory of Britishers for the sake of slavery? Or you think India was only limited to South India? From Harrapan to Tibetan ancient evidences predate IRON age Tamil Cuture ->http://www.tamil.net/list/2001-03/msg00532.html

http://twitter.com/ma_falesu Siddhartha Chatterje

Yes, I am sure, before the universe came along with big bang, there was tamil community. Seriously, history is not a movie scripted by Karunanidhi and acted by MGR. Get over Lemurian mythology.

http://twitter.com/Krishnara R.A.Krishna

Nice post Shankara! I think acceptance is more apposite than tolerance for describing the Hindu ethos. What we have lost is the Kshatriya component through nambypamby secularism. In bending backwards to soothe imagined minority grievances, we have forgotten to apply the rule of law to them.

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_4OCZYXDCEQP5SUFZLM5I4M5TRQ Vijaya

The author seems to forget that India had partition on religious lines, with people from ‘hindu’ side also actively contributing to the enmity between communities. The hindutva literature is full of aggression against other religious communities (and it is not a fringe in India). It is true that hinduism in itself has many deities and additional deities does not make much difference. What hinduism cannot tolerate is the radical dilution of caste/jati. Hindutva is therefore a response to challenge posed by secular law/constitution which dilutes caste beliefs, and religions like islam and christianity. Hindutva does not hesitate to use violence to suppress the challenges. Hence secularism is very much needed and is relevant. The huge number of police/court cases etc on hindus involved in communal violence/hate-speech/riots etc bears testimony to it.

http://twitter.com/ma_falesu Siddhartha Chatterje

with people from ‘hindu’ side also actively contributing to the enmity
between communities.

What would you like them to? Invite the attackers to their home for a cup of tea?

The hindutva literature is full of aggression
against other religious communities (and it is not a fringe in India).

Really? So which Hindutva literature have you read that has so much “hatred”?

What hinduism cannot tolerate is
the radical dilution of caste/jati.

How do you reach this grand conclusion? There exists Hindu communities that eschews caste system. One of the founders of Hindutva political movement was an atheist. But I suppose facts are a luxury when propaganda is the main goal.

Hindutva is therefore a response to
challenge posed by secular law/constitution which dilutes caste beliefs

It does? How and why? What has secularism got to do with caste? If it did, caste based election schemes and reservations would not have been allowed.

Hindutva does not hesitate
to use violence to suppress the challenges. Hence secularism is very
much needed and is relevant.

Oh, my! So which secular law helped to suppress the “violence” from “Hindutva”?

The huge number of police/court cases etc
on hindus involved in communal violence/hate-speech/riots etc bears
testimony to it

You may want to consider the following fact – Hindus still form more than eighty percent of Indian population. Therefore,in this country, people fighting various court cases would be from Hindu community mostly. But don’t let those considerations stop you from riding anti-Hindu moral high horse. As they say in mega-churches, keep faith and keep the fight going.

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_4OCZYXDCEQP5SUFZLM5I4M5TRQ Vijaya

Siddhartha Chatterje,

>> What would you like them to? Invite the attackers to their home for a cup of tea?

Exactly. Ask any violent islamist and even they will say that they are just countering aggression/injustice/atrocities from others. Point is this: No need to invite any alleged attacker to home – nor should such allegations lead to priivate individuals taking to violence/terror. It has to be dealt with law/justice system.

>> There exists Hindu communities that eschews caste system. One of the founders of Hindutva political movement was an atheist

Those who eschew caste system based on a certain interpretation of scriptures are marginal/unorthodox and largely refuted/rejected by orthodox religious mainstream schools, as well as people in general (much less did they convince any significant number of dalits etc). As for one of the founder of Hindutva being an atheist, consider this: Jinnah was not a practicing muslim either – yet he fought for political/social/cultural aspects of religion. Same is the case with some hindutva folks. While they dont care any religious/spirituality, they founght (violently) for preservation of social/cultural/political aspects of religion

>> What has secularism got to do with caste?

Secular laws/constitution are in contradition to the imposition/perpetuation of rules of caste/jati dharmas. That is their problem.

>> Hindus still form more than eighty percent of Indian population. Therefore,in this country, people fighting various court cases would be from Hindu community mostly

I am not talking about any court cases. I am talking about cases related to communal violence/riots/terror/vandalism etc on hindus. This, along with major organizations/parties spewing communal hate/violence, shows that secularism is not a concensus in our country and very much needed to be asserted by the law/constitution.

http://twitter.com/ma_falesu Siddhartha Chatterje

Ask any violent islamist and even they will say that they are just countering aggression/injustice/atrocities from others.

Really? Where did you get this piece of info? Which violent Islamist did you ask?

It has to be dealt with law/justice system.

Thank you for this life saving advise. What would people do when justice takes 5 months to arrive? During Bhagalpur riot in 1989, there was a mosque where students were taken from nearby college, butchered and lifeless bodies used to be thrown in a room beside adjacent to the mosque. After the riot ended, police found 55 dead bodies outside the mosque. The riot was finally finished by a violent Hindu mob and it resulted into more Muslim dead than Hindus. As long as it is not your family involved, I am sure seculars love to offer such a grand advise.

Those who eschew caste system based on a certain interpretation of scriptures are marginal/unorthodox and largely refuted/rejected by orthodox religious mainstream schools

Let us start by seeing an example of such “orthodox mainstream schools” which rejected, shall we? Let us see who rejected what? Cite an example. The very moment you describe “mainstream”, I know what sort of knowledge you have about Hinduism. There is no central authority in Hindusim and we like to keep it that way. Therfore, it is not possible to identify what is mainstream and what is not.

Jinnah was not a practicing muslim either – yet he fought for political/social/cultural aspects of religion. Same is the case with some hindutva folks. While they dont care any religious/spirituality, they founght (violently) for preservation of social/cultural/political aspects of religion

Fought violently? Where did they fight violently? Examples, please. Yes, I need examples.

Secular laws/constitution are in contradition to the imposition/perpetuation of rules of caste/jati dharmas. That is their problem.

Which secular law/constitution prevented jati/dharmas again? I am not asking for the criminal code, I need constitutional references where jati dharma was explicitly forbidden or in direct contradiction with it.

I am not talking about any court cases. I am talking about cases related to communal violence/riots/terror/vandalism etc on hindus.

Yes, so show me some numbers. Let me see case of a single riot which was instigated by Hindus and only Hindus were implicated.

This, along with major organizations/parties spewing communal hate/violence, shows that secularism is not a concensus in our country and very much needed to be asserted by the law/constitution.

You speak as if a thorough implementation of secularism would solve all the problems. Let me ask you. Secularism is in the constitution for the last 35 years. What problems did it solve? I am sure you will argue that it was never implemented properly. What has changed in India that going forward implementation will be changed? How would you implement “true” secularism? By merely screaming that it is all Hindu’s fault? Then, you are fit for Digvijay Singh’s devotee.

http://twitter.com/ma_falesu Siddhartha Chatterje

Oh, I am yet to get a response of the following question – So which Hindutva literature have you read that has so much “hatred”?

http://www.tattvaanveshanam.org/ मानस प्रकाश

While this post is well meaning, I would like to point out a few things.

The fundamental mistake of equating dharma with religion has happened again. Get this, every time you erroneously say dharma=religion you have foolishly conceded huge ground right there.

Why is it that naive Hindus think that events like Gangadhar Shastri Wabale not converting Alauddin to dharma was a good thing? I am sure many people here know the genocide committed by the Bahamani rulers on Hindus. If Alauddin had been converted then perhaps he would have founded a Hindu dynasty instead of an Islamic one that massacred Hindus by the millions. Same goes for the Vijayanagar, Maratha and Sikh empires. If these kingdoms had actively pursued a policy of conversion of Muslims to the fold of dharma (not the jihad-jaziya or inquisition variety, but through bhakti, Arya Samaj methodology) things would have quite likely looked very different today in the Indian subcontinent. Yet, senile Hindus keep mouthing the usual inanities like “Hinduism is not a proselytizing religion”, etc. And this infestation has even pervaded nationalists, as I am sure the author of this post is. Just goes to show how deeply the Nehruvian secularist virus has inflicted Indian society.

http://twitter.com/Sshankara Shankara

These things have happened and thus we are facing the problems. With benefit of hindsight we can only wring our hands in dispair and not say what Shivaji or Prithviraj Chauhan should or shouldn’t have done. Dharma may not be same as Religion but Hindus somehow equate Dharma as religion because we are philosophy based not dogma based. What others called religion we call it Dharma.
BTW Brahmins have refused reconversion of converts and denied them their old caste. VHP for instance took nearly 2 decades to get 3+ lakh Rajput muslims back into Hindu fold as they were not being given Kshatriya caste. Finally a settlement was made. Reconverts wont get daughters but only sons of Hindu Kshatriya but will accept daughters in marriage. Important to keep ground realities in perspective.

http://www.tattvaanveshanam.org/ मानस प्रकाश

@twitter-112143051:disqus Thanks for following up.

I am glad you agree that dharma is not the same as religion. So, why reinforce something that is wrong instead of basing one’s argument on what is correct, i.e., dharma is not the same as religion.

As you have rightly pointed out, to some extent myopic mentality of certain sections have been very costly for dharma and India. But, my point is that why should such mistakes be presented as examples of what you have called “true secularism”? Why not call such those blunders as foolish mistakes never to be repeated again, as I am sure you realize they truly were.